Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00246)

>I probably didn't phrase this question correctly. My definition of an axiom
>is a self-evident truth and as such I am asking why is 'as above, so below'
>self evident? Your answer is perfectly acceptable for you because your
>experience has demonstrated it.....But for others who have not experienced
>it........


Axioms are not necessarily self evident. I believe the definition is
simply that that have to be assumed, and cannot be "proved."
Anyway, there is a wealth of background material on this subject
in occult literature. Basically its a fallout of the fundamental idea
of divinity self-expressing through the cosmic planes of manifestation,
each a reflection deeper into matter of the other. This is a basic
assumption that cannot be proved in any way. But once this is
accepted, then as-above-so-below is a logic deduction.


>I suppose what I mean is what state of consciousness is the preferred state
>in that I was assuming for non-existence the absence of all forms of
>consciousness. Thus there would be no knowledge of suffering or desire let
>alone anything.
>

The absence of all forms implies nirvana, which is not necessarily a
"preferred" state. Actually, what is preferred is pretty much a subjective
call. Theosophists tend to accept the Bodhisattvic teaching that it is
better to remain in samsara helping others than to "escape" into
nirvana. In such a model, a "preferred" mental state is one filled with
compassion for others.


>I meant for any being at all to incarnate..to commence
>existence, not on a personal basis, as I too would entirely agree with your
>response.
>

I don't see any real difference in purpose between personal
and collective. We can personally have lots of reasons for
any one incarnation (learning a lesson, undoing something,
doing something, etc). But collectively, we are all just having
a good time expressing ourselves.


>I really want to know where the defintion of Maya draws the line. If all
>existence is illusory, then are not the beings of this existence illusory
>as well. I get a scary feeling in some of HPB's writings that has to do
>with 'inventing oneself out of the illusory' although once agin my
>phraseology is poor.
>

The line of maya depends on the school. The Theravadin (Hinayana)
view maya as samsara, the four lower cosmic planes. The Great
Perfection school of Vajrayana sees all seven planes as being maya
(i.e., they include nirvana as just more maya). HPB never clearly drew
a line, but I suspect she would side with the Great Perfection school.
Your concern about living beings being illusory lies at the heart of
the difference between Theravadin (yes they are illusory) and Mahayana
(they have a relative reality).


>Yes sorry again. I know the absolute as a concept can have no attributes
>but at the apex of the spiritual hierarchy, that consciousness, must know
>that all beings proceeding from it are of it's own ideation and hence have
>no intrinsic reality - it must know it is truly alon in the universe - This
>is typical psychosis and ends in universal schizophrenia of which we all
>play a part.
>

No psychosis. Loneliness, psychosis, and so on all come from first
accepting the notion of a personal self, a jiva or atman. Buddhist
teaching of anatman or no-self transcends this pathological
condition (i.e., the sense of having a personal self is all part of maya).
Here we get into some trouble with Theosophy because HPB never
went this far. She made atman a monad, and now Theosphists all
see this as "real."  To merge the Mahayana and Theosophy
together we need the idea of two truths: relative and absolute
(which equates to duality and non-duality). The only problem with
this is that there is practically nothing in the Theosophical
literature about this distinction, about emptiness or anatman (of
course, there is nothing opposed to it either, but because it is
not spelled out, Theosophical fundamentalists ignore it and take
atman for reality).


>>From experience I can agree with this because the only time I've been able
>to regress to a previous existence is as a mineral form. But how do I know
>that I was that mineral form in it's not just hereditary memory passed by
DNA.
>

You will never know for sure. When I have memories of past lives, how do
I know that these are true memories or just picking up on the lives of
others
or just an aboration of the brain? I will never know. Just as there are
Ring-Pass-Nots in science (uncertainty principle, quantum foam, chaos, etc)
so there are limits in occultism. A certain amount of faith is required.


>This was just the answer I was looking for.....Where does Karma draw the
>line on actions - motivation or effect? If I eat a cow is that the same as
>swatting a fly or letting all the poor little sperm drown in a semen grave.
>
>

This is a hard question, and one that will spark much debate. Most will say
effect even though HPB implies motive. Vegetarians don't want to kill
animals, but think nothing of killing spinach or beets. I don't think that
we,
as human beings, can live very long without taking the life of other living
beings. Maybe the American Indians had it best when they simply said
a prayer ot thanks and regret whenever they killed for food. In a way,
though,
they idea that all life depends on other lives demonstrates the oneness of
life.


>What I meant was does the entity occupying the sperm return to a devachanic
>existence or immediately return to another sperm body (or even egg).

As far as I understand the teaching, a human monad only enters into
the picture at conception. Sperm and eggs, until conception, are not
carriers of a human monad.


> It
>seems to me the length of devachan at any given moment in history would
>depend on how many vehicles are being produced (through sex), so if many
>'insert appropriate word here' are waiting to incarnate but there are few
>vehicles then devachan must obviously be lengthened (however the Time in
>devachan must be subjective as well)
>

Agreed. But it is not a case where monads are standing in a que
and waiting their turn while they read magazines or watch tv.
Devachan is on the mental plane, and time runs differently there.
There is no boredom (do we get bored dreaming?. Also, there
are Outer Rounds to run as discussed by G de P.


>So fertilization is just a purely alchemical process and the skandhas of
>the incarnating entity determine the ego and not the attributes of the
>parents?


Not exactly. The incarnating ego will be karmically attracted to
particular parents, especially when they are in sexual embrace.
So, there is no real way to know what is one's karmic past
versus one's genetic predisposition from parents (another
occult uncertainty). In essence, when Theosophists talk about
karma from past lives and psychologists talk about genes, they
are using different words to describe the same phenomenon.


>Is the voice in my head a seperate entity or a function of my chemical
>brain.

We all have many voices in our head. The main one, though, is from
the ego or personality: a karmic collection of ideas, biases, fears,
and so on held together by memory.


>When I do mantra meditation, forcing the voice to repeat the mantra,
>say OM MANA PADME HUNG, I find that a second voice has the ability to cause
>thought simultaneously above or behind the mantra. It is a different
>process to plain old thinking verbally in that I do not direct the thoughts
>at all.
>
>

Higher Self, perhaps? Theosophists like to think that we have one ego and
one Higher Ego and thus two identities, mostly because these two are
discussed by HPB. I have found that we have many more than two.

Jerry S.